I thought this was a thread about Harman's How to Listen software. Well, such is life on diyaudio 
I'm with Wesayso in that science leads to enjoyment. Or at least science should lead to enjoyment. I think that's the point Toole and Olive are trying to make and one that most subjectivists miss completely.
Regarding Pano's point about small speakers sounding small. I found this to be a deception of our eyes. The "largeness" of sound has nothing to do with the size of the speaker. I found this out the hard way when I casually listened to 5" KEF coaxials positioned right in front of Altec VOTT cabs and large SEOS horns. I couldn't tell which speakers were playing. It shocked me. That's when I realized that our eyes have an unbelievable amount of influence on what we hear. Hey, if our (male) eyes can deceive when thinking about choosing life partners, what chance does a speaker have?
I'm with Wesayso in that science leads to enjoyment. Or at least science should lead to enjoyment. I think that's the point Toole and Olive are trying to make and one that most subjectivists miss completely.
Regarding Pano's point about small speakers sounding small. I found this to be a deception of our eyes. The "largeness" of sound has nothing to do with the size of the speaker. I found this out the hard way when I casually listened to 5" KEF coaxials positioned right in front of Altec VOTT cabs and large SEOS horns. I couldn't tell which speakers were playing. It shocked me. That's when I realized that our eyes have an unbelievable amount of influence on what we hear. Hey, if our (male) eyes can deceive when thinking about choosing life partners, what chance does a speaker have?
Attachments
I've had that experience with the tiny John Blue JB3 speakers. It was easy to be fooled into thinking they were the big Cain & Cain Ben speakers they were sitting in top of. Did the trick dozens of times, it was my favorite trick one year at RMAF. Very surprising. At least up to moderate levels - the JB3 won't play loud without getting into trouble.
Once I we used to the sound of the little guys and the bigger speakers, it wasn't too hard to tell them apart. But the JB3 are the only small speakers I've heard really pull this off. I so wish I had kept a pair.
I've done this trick with other speakers (also at RMAF) but never with as much success. The illusion can work if the conditions are right. Still, there is no way a 3" driver will fool me into thinking it's a 15" woofer + large horn. Not for long, anyway. While the effect works, it's lots of fun.
Once I we used to the sound of the little guys and the bigger speakers, it wasn't too hard to tell them apart. But the JB3 are the only small speakers I've heard really pull this off. I so wish I had kept a pair.
I've done this trick with other speakers (also at RMAF) but never with as much success. The illusion can work if the conditions are right. Still, there is no way a 3" driver will fool me into thinking it's a 15" woofer + large horn. Not for long, anyway. While the effect works, it's lots of fun.
That's a shame, we've all done it. I wasn't talking phase so much but the opportunity to align the harmonics to be coming from the same driver.
However, this still may not be the nature of this particular distortion (a resonance??). Not to worry.
I put a lot of trust into the concept of reproducing all of the music with a tiny full range driver, I just needed more of them to get there. But one of the key ingredients from the start was to use no crossovers. And get the total phase to follow minimum phase behaviour. Actually I started out chasing linear phase. Listening tests convinced me to go for minimum phase closely following the frequency response. So far that works pretty good. It has been a lot of work but well worth it.
Examples of the results can be found here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/242171-making-two-towers-25-driver-full-range-line-array-160.html#post4560520
The idea was to preserve the harmonics, as much as possible. I do not regret the decision to try that. Read the excerpt from Troels Gravesen on crossovers and their consequences on voices here: Siri's Killer Note
I think what he touches on is very relevant to the above discussion. What I've noticed with my speakers, full range line arrays, FIR corrected, is the harmonics all falling into place. I'm not heavily into piano sound but do know guitar sound by heart. The more I got my DSP recipe in check (with some room treatment as well), leading to better measurements, the more I got natural sounding guitars with the correct overtones I know them to have in real life. Especially acoustical stuff or undistorted electrical guitar sounds. Piano's sound great too, but I should be way more familiar with that to be able to really judge that sound.
Though I try and judge voices too on their correctness, that too is way harder for me without having a good correct reference.
Examples of the results can be found here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/242171-making-two-towers-25-driver-full-range-line-array-160.html#post4560520
The idea was to preserve the harmonics, as much as possible. I do not regret the decision to try that. Read the excerpt from Troels Gravesen on crossovers and their consequences on voices here: Siri's Killer Note
I think what he touches on is very relevant to the above discussion. What I've noticed with my speakers, full range line arrays, FIR corrected, is the harmonics all falling into place. I'm not heavily into piano sound but do know guitar sound by heart. The more I got my DSP recipe in check (with some room treatment as well), leading to better measurements, the more I got natural sounding guitars with the correct overtones I know them to have in real life. Especially acoustical stuff or undistorted electrical guitar sounds. Piano's sound great too, but I should be way more familiar with that to be able to really judge that sound.
Though I try and judge voices too on their correctness, that too is way harder for me without having a good correct reference.
I wish I still had a pair of Maggies or an Acoustat, maybe a Martin Logan. In reference to what Bill brought up, a full-range driver is an interesting experiment. Of course, as it has already been said, loudspeaker design is full of compromises. If we designate "everything" to one source, the cone of a single driver is doing so much, how can we expect it to do "all" of it?
I paired this response (electrostat, electromechanical and full range in to one) because it is a "broadly similar" set of circumstances. If a single drive unit is attempting to cover, say, 60 hz -at a decent amplitude- the driver will be moving so much that we can't "fairly" expect it to deal with all of the intricacies of what is happening, musically, the the mid register we've been talking about.
What I "can" say, is: I have heard some very expensive electrostats, and yes, they sounded relatively good as a loudspeaker but not as a thing that "gets out of the way" and is musical. In fact, I heard some big Martin Logans and I hated them.
At the time, I thought I'd rather stick an ice cube in my ear... or maybe, that's exactly what just happened.
I paired this response (electrostat, electromechanical and full range in to one) because it is a "broadly similar" set of circumstances. If a single drive unit is attempting to cover, say, 60 hz -at a decent amplitude- the driver will be moving so much that we can't "fairly" expect it to deal with all of the intricacies of what is happening, musically, the the mid register we've been talking about.
What I "can" say, is: I have heard some very expensive electrostats, and yes, they sounded relatively good as a loudspeaker but not as a thing that "gets out of the way" and is musical. In fact, I heard some big Martin Logans and I hated them.
At the time, I thought I'd rather stick an ice cube in my ear... or maybe, that's exactly what just happened.
It's interesting that you've stepped in and mentioned the guitar, Wes, as I was just about to discuss that. For our non-musician colleagues, this is actually very important.
Let's discuss instrumental technique and tone production and what it means to audio.
Musicians work very long, and very hard to produce "tone". As it pertains specifically to the (classical) guitar, it's a damned quiet thing! So, how do we sit with the instrument and hope to project to the back of a 500 seat concert hall? The answer "seems" simple -and it is- ... it just takes a couple thousand hours of practice to do it!
Guitarists -if they give a crap about tone production and projection- always sit with the instrument upon their LEFT leg and their left foot elevated upon a stand. You know you're "doing it right" when you can look at your knee cap and out of peripheral vision, you can see both hands. You would think that this is important for the positioning of the left hand and yes, that's right: "it is".
Aye, but here's the rub:
Try to think of yourself playing the instrument. The wrist of the right hand is STRAIGHT. Not hanging down at an angle. The point is: your right hand finger (nails) are going across the string *at an angle*. Not straight across the string. If the performer plays straight across the string, the sound is exceptionally thin and doesn't project (the same goes for a pick or plectrum).
So that's one. Now, two.
There are two right-hand string-plucking techniques on the guitar. Free stroke, and rest stroke. Free-stroke, the finger goes through the string, in to the palm of the hand. Rest stroke, the finger goes through the string and lands upon the "not-being-played" string below it. This technique has a fuller sound. In fact, when this technique becomes really good, he/she will actually feel the back of the guitar smacking them in the belly.
Now, why am I telling you all of this?
Y'know when you hear a badly miked (recorded) guitar? It has that thumpy sorta thud in the bottom end? It's a really low frequency and it will make bass drivers go crazy. But, the guitarist "needs" to use his well-honed technique to project in a concert hall. But this is how we make the guitar sound, big, full and resonant. In this sense, the guitar becomes like the complexity of the piano's sound. We bring out big, round, resonant, full-bodied sound.
In the discussion above, there was mention of a single driver handling everything. I wonder if this is the point where we "should" experiment with a single driver. It can handle much of the sound of the guitar.
Watch the video: "What you listen for is a little pop in the attack" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2runviQRmXg
Let's discuss instrumental technique and tone production and what it means to audio.
Musicians work very long, and very hard to produce "tone". As it pertains specifically to the (classical) guitar, it's a damned quiet thing! So, how do we sit with the instrument and hope to project to the back of a 500 seat concert hall? The answer "seems" simple -and it is- ... it just takes a couple thousand hours of practice to do it!
Guitarists -if they give a crap about tone production and projection- always sit with the instrument upon their LEFT leg and their left foot elevated upon a stand. You know you're "doing it right" when you can look at your knee cap and out of peripheral vision, you can see both hands. You would think that this is important for the positioning of the left hand and yes, that's right: "it is".
Aye, but here's the rub:
Try to think of yourself playing the instrument. The wrist of the right hand is STRAIGHT. Not hanging down at an angle. The point is: your right hand finger (nails) are going across the string *at an angle*. Not straight across the string. If the performer plays straight across the string, the sound is exceptionally thin and doesn't project (the same goes for a pick or plectrum).
So that's one. Now, two.
There are two right-hand string-plucking techniques on the guitar. Free stroke, and rest stroke. Free-stroke, the finger goes through the string, in to the palm of the hand. Rest stroke, the finger goes through the string and lands upon the "not-being-played" string below it. This technique has a fuller sound. In fact, when this technique becomes really good, he/she will actually feel the back of the guitar smacking them in the belly.
Now, why am I telling you all of this?
Y'know when you hear a badly miked (recorded) guitar? It has that thumpy sorta thud in the bottom end? It's a really low frequency and it will make bass drivers go crazy. But, the guitarist "needs" to use his well-honed technique to project in a concert hall. But this is how we make the guitar sound, big, full and resonant. In this sense, the guitar becomes like the complexity of the piano's sound. We bring out big, round, resonant, full-bodied sound.
In the discussion above, there was mention of a single driver handling everything. I wonder if this is the point where we "should" experiment with a single driver. It can handle much of the sound of the guitar.
Watch the video: "What you listen for is a little pop in the attack" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2runviQRmXg
Attachments
Last edited:
Here's an example of a tune where the bass driver goes absolutely nuts because the guitar player's tone is "just that good". The encoding of this MP4 doesn't bring out the subsonic stuff coming out of the guitar like it does on the CD... but trust me, it's really really bad.
But listen for the "thud" on every note of the guitar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQV_w-e2Wf4&list=PL6A435E6959E1633B&index=7
Now this is interesting. I never realized this until now: There's a flaw in Metheny's technique. All of the notes in the head of the tune (the melody) are played with a down stroke. He "should" be able to get the same tone both down-stroke AND up-stroke. But, watch his right hand carefully! Look how angled his pic (plectrum) is!!!! That's how he gets that big, fat, tone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B7tKqMH27c&list=PL6A435E6959E1633B&index=8
But listen for the "thud" on every note of the guitar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQV_w-e2Wf4&list=PL6A435E6959E1633B&index=7
Now this is interesting. I never realized this until now: There's a flaw in Metheny's technique. All of the notes in the head of the tune (the melody) are played with a down stroke. He "should" be able to get the same tone both down-stroke AND up-stroke. But, watch his right hand carefully! Look how angled his pic (plectrum) is!!!! That's how he gets that big, fat, tone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B7tKqMH27c&list=PL6A435E6959E1633B&index=8
Last edited:
Double bass, piano, tom toms, guitar, jazz ensembles, all sound "correct" with the proper snap when I use quasi transient perfect or transient perfect speakers. It's easy to check because with a mouse click in DSP I can switch to a symmetric LR2 non transient perfect XO and the magic is gone.
I had some old 1955 recordings of a jazz session by Miles Davis with some drummers. It never sounded good on my previous speaker systems (I really thought it was just a bad recording) until I listened to it on a transient perfect speaker. It is a simple minimally produced recording and I think those are often best. More recently, jazz trios with Chick Corea on piano and others on double bass and drums excels on a Harsch XO.
I had some old 1955 recordings of a jazz session by Miles Davis with some drummers. It never sounded good on my previous speaker systems (I really thought it was just a bad recording) until I listened to it on a transient perfect speaker. It is a simple minimally produced recording and I think those are often best. More recently, jazz trios with Chick Corea on piano and others on double bass and drums excels on a Harsch XO.
How would we know a bad recording? Not that I've never heard one... I think
Seriously, my goal is to enjoy as much of my music as possible. Differences in recordings do exist. Even worse: different mastering's of the same recording do exist from the same CD's etc. Loudness war effects are real too. But I will never accept to be able to play just a hand full of audiophile recordings.
I listen to a wide variety of music and genre's to "judge" my speaker's performance. But in all honesty if I look at my collection my preference is very clear. One of the pitfalls of this hobby is to only settle for the best recordings.
Whatever they may be. I don't want to fall into that trap (again).
Seriously, my goal is to enjoy as much of my music as possible. Differences in recordings do exist. Even worse: different mastering's of the same recording do exist from the same CD's etc. Loudness war effects are real too. But I will never accept to be able to play just a hand full of audiophile recordings.
I listen to a wide variety of music and genre's to "judge" my speaker's performance. But in all honesty if I look at my collection my preference is very clear. One of the pitfalls of this hobby is to only settle for the best recordings.
Whatever they may be. I don't want to fall into that trap (again).
There is a straightforward and effective answer for this: remaster your music as I am doing. I've completed around 7K tracks to date. The results are typically good to outstanding.
When you develop a little experience looking at the envelopes, spectrograms and cumulative spectra of music tracks, you will be able to spot and correct poorly mastered tracks (i.e, poor in mastering EQ and the use of limiting/clipping) quite easily. Poorly mastered tracks comprise well over 90% of the original music that I own--and most of those were originally recorded before 1991 when the compression-related Loudness War kicked off.
There are other ways that music tracks can be poor as we all know, but correcting these faults will make most of the poorly mastered music enjoyable, for the first time.
Chris
If you want to argue about how the tracks sound after remastering, I suggest you try it--in earnest--on more than just a few discs in your collection, and having enough experience to successfully accomplish that remastering. It's like anything else worth doing--it's worth a little effort into learning how to do it well, and actually doing it. It costs nothing to learn but a little effort.
I also encourage you to read up a bit on Fourier transforms and the effects of continuously clipping the music tracks--which is quite audible at some number of clips per second, unlike what most mastering engineers claim.
Chris
I also encourage you to read up a bit on Fourier transforms and the effects of continuously clipping the music tracks--which is quite audible at some number of clips per second, unlike what most mastering engineers claim.
Chris
Sorry a stupid question is you working in the industry and remaster recordings from raw material or do you mean there is ways to process the recordings to get them improved.
P.S.
It also helps if you're a musician in addition to knowing something about the engineering/physics and knowing the sound of live music and the individual instruments in a non-amplified environment (i.e., for acoustic instrumentation and voices only). It helps a lot--in point of fact.
It also helps if you're a musician in addition to knowing something about the engineering/physics and knowing the sound of live music and the individual instruments in a non-amplified environment (i.e., for acoustic instrumentation and voices only). It helps a lot--in point of fact.
Last edited:
The latter, I'm extremely happy to say.
The mastering profession is on its ear right now with the individual mastering people involved in leading the efforts to raise awareness of Loudness War practices used by the A&R industry in their written contracts back to the mastering agents. These mastering people want to get the A&R people to stop those practices. Ian Shepherd (UK) is one of the most identifiable names in that regard.
I find it odd that the same people that believe that they can engineer loudspeakers and other related audio electronics at home, many without the necessary test and analysis gear, or necessary and sufficient domain knowledge for that matter...but find it difficult to fathom how to do something much easier (IMHO): remastering their own poorly done music to sound much better.
If you've used any kind of non-flat FR audio setups in the past, including perhaps equalizers and other types of loudspeaker or phono balancing networks, you've participated in remastering your recordings--only you've done it each time the tracks are played instead of once, and saved.
Chris
Last edited:
For me, as a person who never received the silver ring on his pinky (P.eng), the mathematics has been a drawback. It's not so prevalent in my "skill set". Having said that, what I "can" bring to bear is many years of composition and working with musicians upon things that are idiomatic for their instruments. I have been very lucky to work with performers and one "card up my sleeve" is that I have been in the same room 6 feet away from the specific instrument he/she performs and records upon:
"Oh, I know how I can see if I have the midrange in this crossover right. That's that wolf tone Joe Blow had upon his 'cello. I remember that like it was yesterday."
This is a very good position to be in because it offers me an advantage, while not owning the equipment that the guys with the ring on their pinky don't have.
Do you know what it comes from and what can help? Solfege.
"The study of solfège enables the musician to audiate, or mentally hear, the pitches of a piece of music which he or she is seeing for the first time and then to sing them aloud."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfège
Having this pounded in to my brain for so many years -I hated it- is an extremely powerful tool.
"Oh, I know how I can see if I have the midrange in this crossover right. That's that wolf tone Joe Blow had upon his 'cello. I remember that like it was yesterday."
This is a very good position to be in because it offers me an advantage, while not owning the equipment that the guys with the ring on their pinky don't have.
Do you know what it comes from and what can help? Solfege.
"The study of solfège enables the musician to audiate, or mentally hear, the pitches of a piece of music which he or she is seeing for the first time and then to sing them aloud."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfège
Having this pounded in to my brain for so many years -I hated it- is an extremely powerful tool.
I'm very interested. Can you please point me in the direction to find out how to do this?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.